Misuse of Anti-Extremism in January 2020

The following is our review of the primary and most representative events in misuse of Russia's anti-extremist legislation in January 2020.

Lawmaking

In late January, the Ministry of Justice made a draft of the new Code of Administrative Offenses publicly available. Among other changes, the new Code proposes to reduce sanctions for legal entities under an article that covers the production of extremist materials (to 50-100 thousand rubles with confiscation of materials and equipment). Another proposed change is to amend the article on prohibited symbols, which is expected to be modified in accordance with the recent amendments to the federal laws (that allow the use of such symbols in the process of forming a negative attitude to the corresponding ideology), and to combine the two parts of the article (on the demonstration and on the sale of paraphernalia and symbols). In addition, according to the new Code, administrative offenses related to extremism will be considered major offenses with no option of dismissing them for lack of significance. Finally, the draft codifies the established understanding of the concept of “continuing offense,” which applies to offenses related to online publications.

Prosecutions for Anti-Government Statements and Abuses When Countering Incitement to Hatred

It was reported in early January that a criminal case was opened against Nikolai Gorelov, a local blogger known under his pen name Kirichenko, under Article 354.1 Part 3 of the Criminal Code (dissemination of information that expresses obvious disrespect for the society regarding the days of military glory and memorable dates of Russia). In May 2018, Kirichenko published on his VKontakte page a work of fiction in which characters, who included a Red Army soldier turned political prisoner, a raped German woman, a Japanese woman kidnapped by North Korean intelligence agencies, Hitler, Stalin, and others, discussed the Stalin regime and the Red Army. We had no opportunity to review Kirichenko’s text in full, but the passages available to us contained no offensive statements about the days of Russia’s military glory. In addition, we view Article 354.1 Part 3 of the Criminal Code as a vaguely worded norm that unduly restricts the right to freedom of expression and leads to unjustified criminal prosecutions.

In mid-January, yet another criminal case was opened against Airat Dilmukhametov, an activist of the Bashkir national movement – this time under Article 282.3 of the Criminal Code (financing extremist activities). Investigators found the signs of a crime in “Appeal to the Bashkir Political Nation,” a text posted by Dilmukhametov in his VKontakte group in 2018. In this text he announced a fundraiser “to support his struggle for the new Bashkir Republic IV,” as well as, at least six times, urged his readers to donate him money via YouTube. Dilmukhametov, who is currently in custody, was charged in March through October 2019 with calls for separatism, extremist activity and justification of terrorism. We are inclined to consider all these charges inappropriate. Accordingly, we consider the new charge unfounded, since we believe that Dilmukhametov asked for financial support of his political struggle, and not of extremist activity.

New charges were brought in Ingushetia against opposition members, who participated in organizing protests against the changes to the Ingushetia-Chechnya border in March 2019. The March 27 rally involved clashes with the National Guard of Russia. Malsag Uzhakhov (chairman of the Council of the Ingush People's Teips), Akhmed Barakhoev, Musa Malsagov (chairman of the Ingush branch of the Russian Red Cross), Barakh Chemurziev, Zarifa Sautieva, Ismail Nalgiev, Bagaudin Khautiev and Akhmed Pogorov have been charged under Article 33 Part 3 and Article 318 Part 2 of the Criminal Code with organizing violence motivated by political enmity against government representatives in connection with performance of their official duties. Uzhakhov, Barakhoev and Malsagov were also charged under Article 239 Parts 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code (operating a non-profit organization, as well as participation in its activities that involved the inducement of individuals to commit other unlawful deeds) and under Article 282.1 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (organizing an extremist community) for creating the Ingush Committee of National Unity; the others were charged under Article 282.1 part 2 of the Criminal Code for participating in this community.

We view charges against the above-named activists, both under Article 282.1 and Article 318 of the Criminal Code, as inappropriate. According to the investigation, the defendants, motivated by political enmity, deliberately pushed the participants of the rally to use violence against government officials. “Manipulating ethnic customs” and “provocatively invoking male dignity and national unity,” the defendants were urging them to protect elders and women by any means necessary. We have no reason to believe that the activists had planned in advance to provoke violence (and got together for this very purpose) or that their calls (regardless of whether they were planned or voiced spontaneously) were intended to motivate the audience to violence. Consequently, on the one hand, it is impossible to regard an association of activists as an extremist community – that is, as a group created to plan extremist crimes. On the other hand, these calls also cannot be viewed as actions to organize the use of violence.

It became known in late January that former police officer Alexei Dymovsky had been charged under Article 280 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (public calls for extremist activity committed on the Internet). According to his lawyer, the charge is connected with “Alexey Dymovsky: Thought of Killing Putin” – a video recorded on October 14, 2019. The video shows Dymovsky in a taxi going through Novorossiysk to the police department to voluntarily surrender the explosives he found, which the police failed to pick up at his signal. Meanwhile, Dymovsky explains that he used to keep TNT at home for several years, because he “wanted to use this TNT against Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich,” but eventually gave up these thoughts, because he came to the conclusion that Putin was a “mentally ill person.” In the video, Dymovsky also calls on all honest people to unite and invites them to a meeting. After the video recording, Dymovsky’s car was stopped by the traffic police, and he decided to voluntarily surrender his TNT to them, and was subsequently questioned by the police. However, several days later, he was arrested and charged with illegal storage and transportation of explosives (Article 222.1 part 1 of the Criminal Code). We view the charge under Article 280 of the Criminal Code as inappropriate, if it is based only on the video, since the latter contains no calls for violence against the president or other officials, and the call for all honest people to unite is peaceful in its character.

A case against Voronezh video blogger Pavel Sychev under Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (incitement of hatred on the grounds of belonging to a social group) was opened in early January. Talking about an August 2019 rally in Moscow on one of his videos, he spoke harshly about law enforcement officials criticizing their use of violence against demonstrators, as well as lack of insignia on National Guardsmen. Sychev did not call for violence in his video. We consider the prosecution against the blogger inappropriate. In our opinion, a professional group, such as law enforcement officers, needs no special protection from hatred within the framework of anti-extremist legislation, and it is protected by other norms. In addition, we advocate eliminating the vague term “social group” from anti-extremist articles of the law.

Eva Repina, a citizen of Uzbekistan and a Norilsk resident, informed us in January that the FSB of Russia had forbidden her to enter the country until the end of 2038; the Ministry of Internal Affairs had subsequently canceled her temporary residence permit. Previously, there were attempts to charge Repina with offences based on the fact that she created the VKontakte album “Online Idiots,” where she kept screenshots of posts and comments containing xenophobic remarks against non-Muslims and Russians – in order to submit complaints against them, according to her. A claim made regarding these screenshots under Article 282 Part 1 of the Criminal Code (incitement to hatred or enmity) in 2018, was declined; a report under the new Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences was compiled early in the following year, but the court terminated the proceedings twice. This did not stop the FSB from banning Repina's entry even prior to the case review; the cancellation of her temporary residence permit followed. Repina lost her appeal against this decision. We see no reason to forbid Repina from living in Russia – it is evident that she had no intention of inciting hatred towards Russians and non-Muslims by collecting xenophobic comments in her album, and removal of the album from public access would be a sufficient measure to prevent online conflicts. We also believe that a twenty-year ban on entering the country based on information on signs of an administrative offense is, in and of itself, a disproportionate measure.

In the course of January, we were informed of two cases of prosecution for demonstrating Nazi symbols that we view as inappropriate. Activist Liana Timerkhanova was fined two thousand rubles under Article 20.3 Part 1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses in Kazan for posting on VKontakte an image, which depicted Artyom Khokhorin, the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Tatarstan, as Adolf Hitler with the Nazi arm band. Obviously, this publication was intended to criticize the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and not to advocate Nazism. In late January, a report under the same article was compiled against Vladislav Shenets, a resident of the Kaliningrad Region. He posted on VKontakte a satirical video with still frames from the Tom and Jerry cartoon as well as images of the swastika and the USSR coat of arms, set to the melody of the USSR anthem. This video apparently did not advocate Nazi ideology. Unfortunately, Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses does not yet provide for taking the context of demonstrating Nazi symbols into account, despite the fact that, according to the federal laws, the ban on the use of Nazi symbols no longer applies to the kind of use that forms a negative attitude toward the ideology of Nazism. It is worth reminding that a teenager from Kursk was already fined in November for publishing a similar (or the same) Tom and Jerry video.

A report under Article 20.1 Part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for “disrespect for the authorities” was compiled in January against Yekaterinburg citizen Mikhail Nikitin. In May 2019, Nikitin left under the Facebook post by the human rights project “Apology of Protest” a comment, which contained an obscene word and was interpreted by the police as referring to the president of Russia, although the comment never mentioned him. A report against Yuri Shadrin from the Vologda Oblast, who compared Putin with Hitler and Stalin and used an obscene word with regard to Putin, was compiled under Part 4 of the same article. Shadrin was already fined 30 thousand rubles in 2019 under Article 20.1 Part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. This time, for the repeated offense, he faces a more severe punishment – a fine in the amount of 100 to 200 thousand rubles or an arrest for up to 15 days.

Prosecutions against Religious Organizations and Believers

Three Jehovah's Witnesses were sentenced in January.

The Nadezhdinsky District Court of Primorsky Krai found Grigory Bubnov (born in 1965) guilty of organizing the activities of an extremist organization (Article 282.2 Part 1 of the Criminal Code) and issued a suspended sentence of five years (or six, according to other sources) with a five-year ban on participating in public organizations and restriction of freedom for a year.

The Polar District Court of the Murmansk Region sentenced Viktor Trofimov and Roman Markin under the same article to a fine of 350 and 300 thousand rubles, respectively.

In Karpinsk of the Sverdlovsk Region, Alexander Pryanikov, Venera Dulova and Darya Dulova were sentenced to two and a half, two and one year of imprisonment respectively under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of an extremist organization).

Meanwhile, the Promyshlenny District Court of Orenburg returned to the prosecutor the case of six Jehovah's Witnesses (Sergey Logunov, Vladimir Kochnev, Nikolai Zhugin, Alexei Matveev and Pavel Lekontsev). Charges against them were brought under different parts of Articles 282.2 and 282.3 of the Criminal Code. According to the court, the prosecution failed to indicate the motives and objectives of their crimes, and the actions imputed to Logunov were not described in sufficient detail.

In Kamchatka Kray, however, a similar lower court decision was overturned by the regional court. The case of Konstantin and Snezhana Bazhenov, as well as of Vera Zolotova was returned to the Yelizovsky District Court for consideration on the merits.

Eight new cases opened against Jehovah's Witnesses were reported in January.

In early January, we learned about a case initiated under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code in Nevinnomyssk of Stavropol Krai; Sergey Kuznetsov, Rimma Vaschenko, Anatoly Boyko, Georgy and Tatyana Parfentiev, Evgeniya Akhrameeva, Nadezhda Konkova, Karina Saakian and another person, whose name we do not know, became the suspects in this case.

A little later, a similar criminal case against three people was opened in Georgievsk of the same region. Defendant Viktor Zimovsky, has been arrested.

In Achinsk of Krasnoyarsk Krai, a case under Article 282.2 Part 1 of the Criminal Code was opened against Viktor Sagin. In Murmansk, a case under the same article was brought against Vitaly Omelchenko; he was put under a ban on certain activities.

Another case was initiated under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code in Kazan. Lyaysan Bochkareva and Tatyana Obizhestvit were placed under house arrest, and Andrei Bochkarev was put in pre-trial detention.

In Kemerovo, Sergei Yavushkin and Alexander Bondarchuk, previously charged with participating in the activities of an extremist organization (Article 282.2 part 2 of the Criminal Code), now face additional charges under Article 282.3 Part 1 of the Criminal Code.

Two new suspects under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code – Alexander Vospitaniuk and Andrei Ryshkov – were charged in Kursk; the latter was arrested.

A criminal case under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code against Gennady Polyakevich and Gennady Skutelets was opened in late January in Pechora of the Komi Republic. The former was placed in pre-trial detention, the latter – under house arrest.

Dmitry Vinogradov, a Jehovah's Witness from Chelyabinsk, was charged under Article 282.2 Part 2 of the Criminal Code.

In mid-January, the Central District Military Court sentenced Arthur Valov and Niyaz Ziyattinov to 12 years in a maximum-security penal colony under Article 205.1 part 1.1 of the Criminal Code (financing of terrorism) and Article 205.5 Part 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in the activities of a terrorist organization). According to the investigation (whose opinion was upheld by the court), Valov and Ziyattinov, arrested in April 2018, had participated in the activities of the radical Islamic party Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has been recognized as terrorist in Russia. They studied religious literature, recruited new supporters and held joint meetings. In addition, they made monetary contributions to support printing of literature and conducting meetings, as well as donated money to help those arrested on similar charges. We believe that prosecutions against Hizb ut-Tahrir members under anti-terrorist articles based solely on their party activities (holding meetings, reading literature etc.) are inappropriate.

We also learned in early January, that Abdulhamid Shakirzianov, the Imam of the Cathedral Mosque, was fined two thousand rubles under Article 20.29 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (mass distribution of extremist materials) in court in December. The administrative prosecution against Shakirzianov was based on the results of an audit by the Novosibirsk Prosecutor’s Office, which found in the mosque’s bookstore the following texts included on the Federal List of Extremist Materials: Women in Islam VS Women in the Judeo-Christian Tradition (Entry No. 3346 of the List), The Gardens of the Righteousby Muhyiddin an-Nawawi (Entry No 4645) and Piety and Fear of God (Entry No. 4153). In our opinion, all three books were banned inappropriately. As we wrote earlier, Yelchin Gadzhiev, the owner of the Novosibirsk mosque bookstore, was also fined in December for distributing two of these books.

Prosecutions for Anti-Religious Statements

A Voronezh court began considerations in the case of a local resident charged with insulting the feelings of believers (Article 148 Part 1 of the Criminal Code) and distributing child pornography on the Internet. According to media reports, the charge under Article 148 of the Criminal Code is associated with the publication on VKontakte of an image depicting “naked saints.” Unfortunately, we had no opportunity to review the image published by the Voronezh resident, but we believe that, if the publication contained insults against representatives of any religion or incited hatred towards them, then these actions should have been qualified under Article 20.3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses; otherwise, he should not have been prosecuted at all. We generally oppose the use of the formula “insulting the religious feelings of believers” in Article 148 of the Criminal Code, since we believe that this vague concept does not and cannot have a clear legal meaning.